State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Pace

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because the misconduct occurred two years after the appellant’s conviction, the appellant could not establish that the evidence would compel a different result
• concluding that the after-discovered evidence was not admissible, as appellant merely sought to introduce the evidence to impeach the detective’s testimony
• holding that because the misconduct occurred two years after the appellant’s conviction, the appellant could not establish that the evidence would compel a different result
• holding that criminal charges against a detective in an unrelated matter does not meet the after-discovered evidence test since such evidence would be used solely to impeach the detective’s testimony
• holding that petitioner’s “new evidence” regarding criminal charges against detective who testified in criminal trial did not warrant PCRA relief where detective’s alleged misconduct took place more than two years after Defendant’s conviction
• holding that filing of criminal charges against a detective in an unrelated matter would not meet the after-discovered evidence test as it would be used solely to impeach credibility and would not likely result in a different verdict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).